- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I think you’re right Ray, and I think he perhaps takes some pleasure in hiding behind anonymity as many on the internet (and this forum) do. That sort of sense that if nobody knows who you are you can say or do whatever you want and get away with it. In the fathers thread I did bait him a bit, but not intentionally. I honestly could not figure out what someone could find humorous about inserting more Jesus in the temple ceremony. Yes, people can poke fun at it (mostly disaffected people), but it’s really not funny. Then, I agree, he made matters worse with his other stories. I’ve certainly had instances where I have found something someone said in a meeting outrageous or preposterous. But I can’t ever for the life of me imagine that I would actually laugh out loud at something that wasn’t meant to be funny (I don’t even laugh at most GA jokes that aremeant to funny). Gaslighting is another good point. Seriously, he and I have directly interacted enough that unless he has severe memory issues he knows I was for a long time very active in the church. I know I’m not always the best communicator but it seems fairly clear that I meant I haven’t been to the temple recently – since the most recent changes.
Just one other point. You mentioned behavior of someone new to faith crisis (and perhaps having a place to voice there thoughts). He is far from new at the faith crisis business – this has been decades for him. It may be that he hasn’t had the media to express himself adequately in the past, but I don’t think we can excuse his behavior based on his faith crisis being a new thing.
That last part (that he is not new to a faith crisis) is what has bothered me the most – and I just realized my last comment sounded like I thought his was new. My wording wasn’t specific enough. The complaints about the new endowment version really surprised me. I know literally nobody else who hates the increased references to Jesus, even if they disagree with the theological statements in a couple of cases – or who prefer the former version, including what was removed.
The fact that he is not new to doubt makes me question what he wants from us – and if, maybe, he just wants a safe place to criticize and mock – without any attempt to “get help” in a real way.
I can’t remember in this moment what his current activity level is, so I will go back and read his comments from the start. That will make a difference how I view his participation, especially if he has been to the temple since the changes (for multiple reasons), as his wording indicates (if I remember correctly).
He says he continues to attend the temple. He says he has had interactions with top-level church leaders in England, including area seventies. He basically described his efforts as a crusade, without using that term. My sense is that he views himself as a Mormon Martin Luther trying to nail his manifesto to the door and getting nowhere with it. He also has said, repeatedly, he will leave the Church if Elder Oaks becomes it’s top leader – but, even if that doesn’t happen, no official policy is likely to change in a massive way immediately upon someone else taking that role. The change is most likely to continue to be incremental. I am struggling to see how we can help in anyway he appears to be demanding. I don’t think we ban him for that, but I also don’t have any idea how to help him. I really do think he is looking for a supportive environment to vent and have support in his bitterness.
I also am curious what other group he joined that banned him before he tried us.
One other thing that bugged me is that he said he actually did get a LOT of support from the local leaders where he lived, including some very high up the chain. He said they approved of his educational program to help leaders understand the issue and the members dealing with it. He said a Bishop refused to implement his program out of ignorance of his ward members, and he walked away furious about that ignorance. I can’t shake the feeling that we aren’t getting the full story – because I struggle to see how his description led to such frustration that he quit trying.
Also, he appears to live in Africa now and appears to be a very high level executive in his field. Not that it matters in most ways, but it generally supports the condescension and mocking of people who are too ignorant to appreciate and support his reform efforts. It also might be a tipping point to be in an area where active homosexuality basically is a death sentence. He might be in a situation that is making him stop his previous efforts and go back fully into the closet.
I get the impression he is intelligent enough to read posts in a forum and look for the least amount of restrictions possible – a “faithful” site that still will tell him he is right and his efforts and anger are completely justified. We can do and have done much of that, but his tone changes immediately whenever someone pushes back in any way, to any degree. The exceptions are when it is a more intellectual comment, like Amy’s. He has no idea, I am sure, about my educational and professional background, so I think he pushed back much harder to me than he does to Amy – not just because I wielded the administrative button first.
Summary, after reading his responses: It appears he wants unity but only if that means no differing views from his in areas about which he is certain – where he sees in black and white terms. I hope he responds to my questions. I repeated them to try to focus the responses and emphasize our mission. We will see.
Oh, did he respond! What really rubs me the wrong way in his response is questioning you Ray. Really, what difference does it make if you’re active or not? The only point in that particular part of the rhetoric seems to be “I’m in a better position than you because I’m active and even a stake leader! My opinion therefore matters more than all you inactive slackers here.” But he has no idea that you are very active. Then he goes on to reiterate he will become one of the inactive slackers should Oaks succeed Nelson. :think: In the end of his response he postulates that maybe he’s outstayed his welcome. Maybe. The orthodox point of view certainly has it’s place here. I don’t think it’s so much what he says as opposed to how he says it. That doesn’t seem to sink in, and in most of his interactions it becomes a matter of all sides simply repeating their stances. His questions are not really questions, they seem to be the catalyst for him to have the opportunity to tell us why he’s right and everybody else is wrong.
^^This. I went ahead and responded – ignoring his “that will suffice” comment.
😁 I really do think he has control issues and that he probably got banned from at least one other site for that reason, but I wanted to put the decision squarely on him in this forum.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.